Children Draw And Tell

An Introduction To The Projective Uses Of Children's Human Figure Drawing

Marvin Klepsch, Laura Logie

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780876303061
• eBook ISBN: 9781317758655
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

First published in 1988. Child therapists have long been fascinated by children's human figure drawings and what they reveal about self-image, feelings, and' family relation­ ships. Now this comprehensively researched volume provides a valuable introduction to using children's human figure drawings as projective measures in a variety of settings. The principles for interpreting drawings, as well as general and specific indicators, are illustrated in 85 children's drawings. Part I on The Theory deals with the background of projective psychology, discussing art as a projective technique and emphasizing that all behavior, including drawings, reflects personality, attitudes and values. The authors examine the major methods of obtaining diagnostic information and recommend the use of several methods for best results. Part II on The Application examines in detail the projective use of children's human figure drawings to evaluate personality, relationships (particularly in families), group values, and attitudes. In each area, research is presented, directions for administration of various tests are given, and guidelines for interpretation are offered. Significant factors are revealed in numerous children's drawings, accompanied by clinical comments. Of special interest is the presentation of original research on group values among Canadian Indian (Saskatchewan Cree) children and on attitudes of young children toward teachers, doctors and other authority figures as revealed in human figure drawings. For psychologists, social workers, teachers and other child-care professionals, as well as students in these fields, this is an indispensable basic guide to interpreting human figure drawings.

PART I

THE THEORY

CHAPTER 1

ART IS PICTORIAL LANGUAGE

Written and spoken languages depend on words to communicate meaning, feelings, and emotions. Other forms of language do not – like the language of mathematics, the language of love, the language of flowers, or body language. For the purposes of this book, language is given its broadest meaning. It is Every action which proceeds from the human body, for we communicate not only with words but with unconscious gestures, ways of sitting, standing and walking, styles of dancing and handwriting, choreography, creative writing, music, and art.

Whether the subject wills it or not, the self is projected into each of these activities and revealed to the careful observer. Unconscious gestures, for example, can betray a person’s real feelings or state of mind. True, the eyes and face can sometimes deceive or mask what is really being experienced. The rest of the body, however, is usually more truthful. Ekman and Friesen (1969), gestural language scientists, attribute this to the fact that the face receives some basic training in childhood, while the rest of the body does not. To illustrate: If, as a child, you had registered extreme distaste on being instructed to kiss some ugly old lady, you would no doubt have been told in no uncertain terms to straighten up your face. Besides, you may have found it convenient to cultivate a blank or innocent look for purposes of your own. Unlike the face, the rest of the body does not receive the same practice in the art of deception. So while the face may be telling one story, unconscious gestures like the fluttering of the hand, the tapping of a foot, or jerky body movements may be the giving the true account of what is going on inside.

Long before these gestures of deceit were demonstrated experimentally, Sigmund Freud recognized them for what they were. The author of Language, David Thomson (1975), quotes him as having once said, “He who has eyes to see and ears to hear may convince himself that no mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore.” In other words, even if there is no speech and the face refuses to tell, the rest of the body can leak information about the person and what may be happening inside the self. In particular, the hand can doodle involuntarily. It can also draw voluntarily. The challenge is to learn how to read what is drawn.

A drawing captures symbolically on paper some of the subject’s thoughts and feelings. It makes a portion of the inner self visible. The very lines, timidly, firmly, boldly or savagely drawn, give us some information. More is revealed by the content, which is largely determined by the way the subject, consciously or unconsciously, perceives himself and significant other people in his life.

The important point about this self-revelation is that the drawer does not have to be drawing himself. He may be drawing just “a person” or his teacher or his dentist or members of his family. Unwittingly, he sketches in some details of his own traits, attitudes, behavior characteristics, personality strengths and weaknesses. In other words, he leaves an imprint, however incomplete, of his inner self upon his drawing.

This is true of artists far more sophisticated than the young drawers featured in Children Draw and Tell. Consider, for example, William Turner, the English painter of so many superb watercolor landscapes. He depicted people (when he used them at all) either drowned or huddled in thunderstorms or as insignificant specks in the picture. It is interesting to note that he was a gnarled gnome of a man with plain features and keen gray eyes. Taciturn, reclusive, and stingy, he was further burdened with an incurably insane mother. On the contemporary scene, no one looking at the works of Allen Sapp, the noted Saskatchewan Cree Indian painter from our own community, would deny that his cold, snowy, desolate landscapes reflect the rigors of his childhood on the reserve, or that his human figures speak of dignity in hardship, and the Indian way of life as it used to be.

To the astute observer, artists speak eloquently of themselves in pictorial language, just as writers speak in word language and composers in the language of musical sounds. In every case, the work reflects the person. Since drawing also reflects the person, the idea of using it as a measurement of personality, of self in relation to others, of group values, and of attitude is not out of line. Its use is all the more valid when one considers that children are able to convey in their drawings thoughts and feelings they cannot possibly express in speech or writing. They simply do not have the words with which to do it, and like our ancient ancestors, must learn to draw before they learn to write. Long before written language existed, man scratched drawings on cave walls to record his feelings, needs, and actions.

Drawing communication, then, is elemental and basic. It is also universal. In modern times, it has had a remarkable growth and can cross any existing language barrier with the greatest of ease. Wherever we travel in the world, signs, symbols and pictures tell us where to phone, camp, eat, drink, sleep, exchange currency, obtain information, where the washrooms and nonsmoking areas are – all without the aid of words.

The topic of a recent Canadian Broadcasting Company Man Alive program was the plight of Lebanese children orphaned by war. These children were born in wartime and have lived in a war environment ever since. A wise, compassionate man in charge of one of the many preschool orphanages makes drawing a routine activity for the youngsters. The purpose is not so much to measure as to provide a release for their feelings and hostilities. As one might expect, the drawings feature war planes attacking, bombs exploding, and tanks on the march. The people depicted are all armed with weapons of some sort. One little child draws a white dove pierced through with an arrow, from the tip of which drops of red blood are falling. What more can one say? Art is pictorial language.

CHAPTER 2

UNCOVERING INSIDE INFORMATION

MORE THAN ONE WAY

Drawing speaks louder than words in the early stages of a child’s development. It is, therefore, ideally suitable as a technique for uncovering information about the inner self. Besides, most children like to draw, which makes the technique an easy one to administer. However, drawing is by no means the only way to gain insight into personality, perception of self in relation to others, group values and attitudes. There are, in fact, three main ways of doing this: self-report, observation, and projective techniques, of which drawing is but one.

1. Self-report Technique

The child is asked directly about his thought and feelings in as simple a way as possible. The questions are often put verbally in an interview. In the case of an older child, they may be written. The following sample questions (or other items requiring a response) are typical of tests, readily available on the market, which attempt to measure school attitude, personality, or perception of parents:

To Measure School Attitude (answer Yes or No)

Do you like school?

Is school fun?

Does your teacher care about you?

School is boring.

Teachers talk too much.

To Measure Personality (answer Yes or No)

I like to fight.

I like belonging to lots of different groups.

People say I’m too loud and noisy.

I like to play with boys and girls.

When I am alone and hear a strange noise, I am frightened.

To Measure Perception of Parents

If you were sick and had to go to a doctor, would you ask your mother or father to go with you?

Whom would you ask to help you with your homework – mother or father?

Who do you think is a happier person, your mother or your father?

If you were unhappy and needed someone to talk to, would you go to your mother or your father?

The trouble with self-report is that the implications of the answers may be fairly obvious to the child. As a result, the responses could be consciously controlled. In addition, items of this nature are susceptible to a response set, in which some children will consistently tend to agree or disagree with the items regardless of their content. Sometimes a child may have to choose between more responses than just Yes or No, e.g. Yes, Not Sure, No, or Yes, Usually, Sometimes, No. In such cases, he may tend to select the alternative which appears in a particular position and to give either extreme responses or weak, noncommittal ones.

2. Observation Technique

This differs from the self-report technique in that the child’s personality, perceptions, values and attitudes are inferred by observation of his behavior. By rating the child in various areas, one is able to get a measurement of what he is like. Rating scales have been devised to measure different aspects of the child’s behaviour.

To Measure School Attitude

(Child is rated on a 5-point scale according to the degree of each behaviour)

Volunteers answers

Dawdles and procrastinates

Is discourteous to teachers

Writes on the desk

To Measure Personality (rating is Yes or No)

Cries easily

Shy

Whines and complains

Shares with other children

Is aggressive and hits out at others

To Measure Perception of Peers (rating is Yes, Sometimes, No)

Does child initiate contact with peers?

Does he get along better with adults than agemates?

Does he express feelings about others?

Does he participate in informal, playground games?

Observational techniques are not without certain persistent problems. Some raters tend to err in a particular direction. They may be too severe, too cautious, or too generous. The result is little variation in scores among the children. Again, many tend to be influenced by the overall “quality” of the child. A child who is liked will probably receive high ratings in all areas being assessed. This “halo” effect obscures the strengths and weaknesses of the traits being measured. Finally, ratings are often suspect since raters who know what the ratings are to be used for may be influenced by this knowledge. This is particularly true when children’s attitudes are being rated.

3. Projective Technique

These include measures such as sentence completion tests, interpretation of pictures, word association tests, interpretation of play, and drawing techniques. The basic assumptions underlying this approach are that the relatively ambiguous nature of the materials used enables the child to make responses he would otherwise find difficult, and that, in responding, he organizes his material in terms of his own motivations, perceptions, attitudes, and other aspects of his personality. An example of one projective method is showing a child a picture of a family or of a classroom and then asking him to tell a story about the picture. It is assumed that the child projects himself in the story and, in fact, talks about himself, his school, or his family. Questioning the child about the story may bring out additional information.

Some psychologists question the basic assumption that the child’s responses, even if spontaneous and undistorted, reflect his own personality, perceptions, values, and attitudes. However, where the projective use of children’s drawings is concerned, we are convinced of the value of this technique. Verbal and writing skills are open to deliberate modification by the subject in a way that drawing is not. Moreover, where these skills are lacking or insufficient, drawing offers an important alternative for self-expression. However imperfect, it seems to be able to bring out information about a child which no other technique can.

It has another advantage too. According to a study by Brannigan, Margolis and Moran (1979), drawing is not biased against impulsive children, as some other tests seem to be. When the drawings of impulsive and reflective groups of children were compared (using several variables which indicate impulsiveness), no significant differences were found. This finding convinced these authors that drawings would be useful for general screening.

MULTIPLE APPROACH NEEDED

Since no one technique can adequately assess a child’s personality, perceptions, values and attitudes, a multiple-measures approach should always be used. In trying to measure attitude, for example, it would be unwise to rely on drawings alone. Drawings should be supplemented with information from another projective measure, from observation, from an interview or from an objective type of test. Many writers on this topic agree on the need for multiple measures: Ball (1971); Cook and Selltiz (1964); Kahn (1978), Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, and Sechrest (1966). The types of measures used will depend upon the child. For quiet, shy children who do not like to talk, drawings and observational approaches would likely be the best. For those with speech and language difficulties, again the use of drawings and observation would be indicated. Some highly verbal children would likely respond well to interview or direct procedures, as well as to drawings.

THE UNIQUE ROLE OF DRAWINGS

Drawings add a dimension not tapped by self-report or observ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Foreword by Joseph H. DiLeo, M.D.
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• PART I. THE THEORY
• PART II. THE APPLICATION
• References
• Index